lyndon johnson grittily be very goldwater and richard nixon, overwhelming george mcgovern. each of those elections, one of the candidates failed to capture the spirit of the american voting public and the winner had the advantage of a weak opponent. franklin roosevelt won his second term landslide because of huge popularity. and many of our presidential elections, the candidates are in a fitted title to present themselves as the one capable of serving the country with the winner is walking off with the modern maturity. the customary wisdom that the campaign between the incumbent president and his opponent will be either a referendum on the first term of the president or a judgment of which candidate would be the better theater. is there really a difference between these two considerations? is it not boil down to judging the leadership skill of the incumbent based on effectiveness during his first term versus the unknown leadership skills of the challenger. it's easy to point to the national security or economic consequences impact on the ratings have been in combat as the i